Why can't dinosaur bones and teeth be directly radiometrically dated?

Answer 1

With the exception of Carbon dating, radiometric dating can only be used on igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks or the actual fossils. Because fossils are found in sedimentary rock, paleontologists try to use radiometric dating information on igneous rocks found below and above the fossils in order to try and determine an age range for the sedimentary rocks.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
-The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
-Decay rates have always been constant.
-Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

These dating methods are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on some big assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe). There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called "Thousands...Not Billions" and learn about some of their remarkable results. If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of proof of radiometric dating not being accurate. The radioactive dating methods are often a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning.

OK, since you mention dinosaurs, is there evidence of younger dates for dinosaur fossils?

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years; that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Philip J. Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.” As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

Answer 2

All the answers so far are half right. Carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating. (Other forms include Potassium dating, Argon dating, etc.) However it is the only kind of radiometric dating that can be used *directly* on organic (carbon-containing) tissue. However, that tissue has to be less than about 60,000 years old or else the short half-life of Carbon-14 leaves such small traces of Carbon-14 that is is not measurable. So the first answer is that, even if the dinosaur bones and teeth themselves still survive, we can't date the tissue itself, but must instead date the rock around it using other radiometric methods. That direct dating of the rocks, is an indiret dating of the bones and teeth. The second answer is that in most cases, no actual bone or tooth tissue remains. Instead, the skeleton left an impression which was filled in with other (rock) material ... a fossil. We can directly date that fossil using radiometric techniques (like Argon or Potassium dating), but this is, again, indirect dating of the dinosaur bones and teeth.

Answer 3

There is an illusion amongst the public that the finds by palaeontologists are actual bones of dinosaurs but it is not possible for the bones of the dinosaurs to survive so long in such form without significant decay (remember, these bones would have to be 65 million years old or older). So as the bones decay, the bone material is replaced by minerals and rock, just like a fossil, and this is what is uncovered by palaeontologists. This cannot be radio metrically dated because the carbon-14 which was in the bones has decayed so we need to rely upon the rock around the site where the fossil was discovered to work out a general age. It can be time consuming and it is rarely accurate which is why we measure it in millions of years.

Answer 4

Because radiometric dating involves the presence of a radioactive element such as uranium which is not naturally found in animals but in certain rocks. Animals that breath in oxygen produce carbon dioxide and so the carbon can be subject to carbon dating but rocks can not because they obviously are inert or nonliving. Carbon dating yields dates of mostly thousands or ten thousands of years and is often rejected when used in dating dinos because of the short ages that can be reached unlike the millions or hundreds of millions of years that radiometric dating gives which fits in the made up geological column (not based on real observable strata as depicted in the column). So the rocks found by a dino are radiometricaly dated and those results are given to the dino. This is not really a valid thing to do. If we were to go to a cemetery and dig up skeleton which had a headstone reading "died with his boots on 1907 A.D." and radiometricaly tested the rocks around that skeleton, we could get a reading of many millions of years for a date and then we could say that the guy who died with his boots on must be that old as well. Obviously, that would not be the real case but when it comes to dino dating it is acceptable. This is not good science to say the least.

Answer 5

Radiometric dating is only useful for ages on the same order as the 1/2 life. IF the 1/2 life is 2500 years, then not enough of it would be around for dating something that's a million years old. Look up the 1/2 life of carbon 14 and notice that it's only used for items about that age.

Answer 6

Because most of the carbon -14 has decayed away (due to the 65-200 million plus years of age) to such low levels that doing radiometric counting (counting of radioactive decays) would require prohibitvely long sampling periods to get acceptable uncertainty of the measurement. Argon/potassium dating would also not likely be useful as it would have too much uncertainty as well.

Using mass spectrometry can greatly improve the sensitivity of the analysis, and it is really the only laboratory analytical method of dating that can be used. Most dinosaur bones are dated straigraphically, that is dating by knowing the geologic age of the strata that the bones are found in.

Answer 7

I just want to clarify something that the person above me said about half life. A half life is not literally half of somethings life. They were completely wrong in their explaination, except the part about carbon 14 half life being 5700 years. This means that in 5700 years, half of the carbon that was there will be decayed into something else. 5700 years later from that, it will be half the size again, and so on until nothing is left. Carbon 14 can date things 10's of thousands of years old. It does not mean you can only date things 2300 years old. That is false. I certainly hope they did not have a test on this, because he/she would've failed.

Also, fossils are technically rocks. They are not bones. Rocks do not contain C14 and therefore cannot be dated this way.

Answer 8

Some of the above contibutors might be surprised to realise that dinosaur bones have been found containing blood cells - much to the surprise of the researcher!
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=dino+blood&hl=en&lr=

This is clear evidence that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago.
Even though the secular scientific community think the preservation must be due to yet unexplained mechanism.
I don't know if they have carbon dated the bones - would be interesting to know the result.

Many things which are 'too old' to be dated by carbon dating, such as coal and diamonds do in fact contain Carbon 14. Carbon 14 dating cannot date beyond about 50000 years due to its half life of around 5700 years.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/

Answer 9

These bones have been replaced by other minerals, a process called "petrification". You might be able to find some material that could be dated, but you would be dating the date of petrification at best. Oh, well, back to the drawing boards.

Answer 10

Hi. Gene is right. We can only estimate when the creature died by measuring the age of the surrounding rock.